Convention on Biological Diversity - 9

9.1 - Choice of New Zealand case studies
9.2 - Prioritisation of specific research topics
Table 3: Research gaps
9.3 - Prospects for the future of New Zealand biodiversity
9.4 - Conclusion - New Zealand at the crossroads

9 - Discussion

9.1 - Choice of New Zealand case studies

General considerations in choice of case studies

The CBD aims regarding case studies about agricultural biodiversity are given on the CBD website³⁴⁷; and indicative guidelines for what to include and how to structure the case study is reproduced as Appendices A³⁴⁸ and B³⁴⁹ to this report for agricultural biodiversity and forestry respectively. The secretariat's main requests are:

a common framework should be used to aid synthesis of lessons
specific linkage to the CBD principles and cross-cutting themes is encouraged
the forest biodiversity case studies have a much stronger emphasis on linking the material to the ecosystem management approach than does the protocol for the agricultural biodiversity
there is no limit to length to the agricultural case studies but 5 pages is suggested for forestry ones
there is no direction to scope or depth of the item
national summaries are not necessarily requested.

Case studies already posted on the CBD website are varied in scope and depth, as expected from such a loose brief. Some present little more than a selected bibliography of publications (e.g. the USA government contribution to the pollinator focal area³⁵⁰); others provide a national and international summary of the issues that combine several research initiatives (e.g. Canada's "Biodiversity of Mycorrizal fungi" ³⁵¹); and others are very tightly subscribed specific projects or research topics (e.g. The Great Sand Hills Case Study from Canada in the Integrated landscapes focal area³⁵²). Some are simply a scanned image of a research paper published elsewhere³⁵³.

The need for some integrative reviews

There is a danger that readers of the CBD web site will be swamped by lots of disparate case studies with little guidance to the generic lessons or integration of material from several sources. There seems little point in simply reproducing a research paper that is readily accessible in the published literature and written in a highly technical style for a research science audience.

We urge that a high proportion of case studies presented by New Zealand from now on should be comprehensive and integrative in scope. Particularly salient and tightly focused projects are still potentially valuable to expose detail, but we recommend that they become the second priority once the overall New Zealand lessons are presented in cohesive reviews. Small tightly focussed case studies are more like individual building bricks, whereas integrative reviews will show the overall building made of several less well described blocks. We recommend, if resources allow, that MAF should prepare at least one New Zealand review in each of the four focal areas before any other smaller reviews are added. Integrative styled case studies will take about 5 - 8 days to prepare by a person familiar with the area who has already amassed the literature and information, whereas shorter and very focussed examples might take 2-5 days. A cost effective mix would therefore be to include one or more over-arching reviews in each focal area and several smaller ones.

New Zealand could also offer valuable lessons on the cross-cutting themes which are not necessarily grounded in the four focal areas but that still are relevant to safeguarding agricultural biodiversity.

So far New Zealand has presented 17 case studies for the Alien species pages³⁵⁴ and three for agricultural biodiversity³⁵⁵. We recommend that new case studies for the CBD website should complement rather than overlap with the existing ones because the users are in danger of information overload or saturation if material is covered more than once. Cross reference to the other CBD case studies should be encouraged in the case studies presented.

Ecological, social and economic importance are the key determinants of the utility of the case studies. The case study indicative guidelines request examples of best professional practice in each area. We need to display those as incentives for others to follow, but we consider it is important that the exercise is not treated as a "good news" public relations shop window. Honest admission of failures and in particular identification of why an initiative is failing can be very valuable to help others not to fall into the same traps.

Cross-cutting themes in case study choice

We recommend that a strong and cost effective portfolio of case studies be submitted that includes:

the social dimension of ecosystem management must be included, if possible showing the linkage between people and ecological levels of the problem or opportunity to protect or enhance agricultural biodiversity.
a wide range of topics to illustrate the divergent spatial and ecological process scales determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of the four focal areas reviewed
well defined science understanding as crucial to the cases success; understanding of the component system's biodiversity within landscapes is especially important
both strong application and strong research acting together instead of strong science or strong application practice
ongoing learning as a planned part of the process (this will illustrate the role of adaptive management)
links to research gaps identified for other agendas in this contract research brief
examples of the way threatened species are being managed in production landscapes (this will illustrate the potential for protection and use to be integrated and diffuse the unhelpful divide that has been promulgated by a belief that only protection or use can occur in a given place)
examples from all ends of the continuum between intensive cropping and horticulture to pastoralism (this will increase the potential use of New Zealand lessons for all agriculturalists)
show the parallel issues in Australia and the Pacific (shared biogeography and similar societies may make the experiences in New Zealand particularly relevant and valuable for our closer neighbours)
experience of local experts that can write with authority and speed

Ranking between focal areas

It is more important to choose case studies demonstrating good ecological or management levels than it is to balance the number of case studies equally between the four focal areas. We therefore recommend that there be no attempt to rank or balance the number of case studies amongst the four focal areas. However, at least one case study in each focal area should be included so that international teams gain from at least one window to view New Zealand's experience, especially if it included an integrative overview styled approach.

Some potential examples of case studies

Our literature reviews and networking with New Zealand environmental researchers and managers have identified nearly 100 potential case studies using the relevant criteria outlined above. We think that they are all valuable but have provided importance scores to allow ranking them relative to each other in Appendix E. We have suggested potential authors for each case study who are experts in the field or are likely to have the material gathered to allow fast and efficient generation of the case studies. Naturally other people may be equally able to fulfil the writing brief.

We recommend that as many case studies are mounted as resources allow and that topics are selected approximately in the rank order given in Appendix E.

9.2 - Prioritisation of specific research topics

We have tabulated specific research gaps identified mainly in the four focal areas set for the CBD brief (Table 3), but we also include some other topics stretching beyond the focal areas which seem potentially important for safeguarding New Zealand agricultural biodiversity. Our reviews have highlighted that large gaps in understanding of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes abound in all four focal areas and in general. This in part reflects past neglect of biodiversity research in these landscapes, which were seen as low priority for biodiversity care.

We recommend that MAF initiates a considerable step-up in the volume of research and adaptive management initiatives dedicated primarily to safeguarding biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Without this ball-park increase in investment there is little prospect for improved learning and management to guide more effective enhancement of agricultural biodiversity in New Zealand in the coming decades.

Table 3: Research gaps

Table 3: Research Gaps
Research topic Number	Research Topic	CBD Keywords	Ecological importance	Economic importance	Social importance	Urgency	NSS SLM Priority	Themes/notes
1	Biodiversity monitoring within plantation forestry, not assessment	Concepts; CBD; Sustainable management; Monitoring; BMP; Exotic	High	High	High	High	A	Here and overseas inventory/assessment techniques have been used by management and researchers alike, instead of the appropriate, scaled monitoring programmes outlined by CBD recommendations and the sustainable management approach. While assessment/inventory data is important in setting up a monitoring programme(s) it is the monitoring over time to detect change and trends that allows management to predict what will happen to biodiversity/productivity in relation to forestry practices.
2	Knowledge of invertebrates of woody systems and their role in the recycling of carbon in a range of plantation forestry types - including pine/ eucalypt/ cypress/ Douglas fir	Invertebrates; Forestry; Forest soils; Exotic	High	High	High	High	Not listed but underlies all biodiversity questions	Forests capture and store carbon, most biodiversity exists as invertebrates involved in release of carbon and retention of nitrogen. To know effects on biodiversity we need to gather information on the extent to which forest management is beneficial for endemic invertebrates, (and vice versa)
3	Knowledge of the functional structure of characteristic communities of invertebrates of generic types of indigenous systems	Invertebrates biodiversity; ecology	High	Medium	Low	High	Not listed but underlies all biodiversity questions	We need information on the biodiversity of indigenous systems before we can judge how managed systems stack up. This requires standardised approaches so that results may be compared.
4	Knowledge of key drivers of invertebrate biodiversity of managed vegetation systems - including arable, pastoral, horticultural and forestry.	Invertebrates; biodiversity; ecology	High	High	Medium	High	Not specifically listed, but underlies all priorities directed at biodiversity	Most biodiversity exists as invertebrates (specifically insects). We need to understand the characteristics of the suites of species present in the various systems. The functional structure of characteristic communities can give guidance as to the key drivers shaping biodiversity. This would require a collaborative approach between several research providers
5	Biocontrol enhancement from diversification of agricultural landscape	landscape; pastoral; biocontrol	High	High	Medium	High	Not specifically listed, but underlies all priorities directed at biodiversity	Although not specifically considered by the NSS criteria this theme of understanding biological benefits from the integration of production and conservation underlies several of the high-rating concerns. Identifying economic drivers for biological conservation always has major advantages because land managers are receptive to the message and so greater gains can be made with available resources. Examples: Serratia and native tachinid control of grass grub.
6	Use of indigenous remnants within plantation forestry	Forestry; Landscape; Avifauna; Exotic; Indigenous; Biogeography; Reserves	High	Low	High	Medium		Indigenous remnants within plantation forests may be providing suitable habitat such as dead trees, tree holes, dead spars, fruiting natives and snags, for indigenous avifaunal and native bats. These remnants may also provide "stepping stones" between indigenous forest for fauna that ranges over a wide area. Research into the importance of the biogeographical properties of indigenous remnants has been lacking.
7	Development of native bee monitoring and sampling protocols	Pollination; Native bees; honeybees	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium		Ecology and behaviour of the native bees has not been exhaustively studied; taxonomy and review of existing information is about to be completed by B. J. Donovan. Re-assessment of research priorities should wait until that review is published. In the meantime the priority is to learn how to monitor them.
8	Tb/Possum/Ferret control benefits to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes	Landscape; Pest control; Predators	High	High	High	High	A	Large-scale poisoning targeting mainly possums and ferrets is the biggest national example of active intervention to control pests in broadly agricultural landscapes. Other predators (rats, mice, hedgehogs) are also poisoned along with the possums in these operations. Research is still needed to understand the biodiversity consequences/benefits from this massive and continuous intervention. Rising concern about toxic pollution makes this research urgent because it will allow society to balance benefit with risk in its decision about whether to continue with the widespread poisoning.
9	What biodiversity do we want? Setting the goals?	Concepts; CBD; Sustainable management; Monitoring; BMP; Exotic; Indigenous	High	High	High	High	A (fits with social perceptions)	Agricultural land contains a high biodiversity. When forests are cut down and successional species volunteer into the unoccupied space the biodiversity of the ecosystem reaches levels higher than contained in uncut forest. BUT the biodiversity is of a more generalist nature, containing many weedy species, generalist bird species and overall many introduced flora and faunal species. Deciding what biodiversity we want is therefore very important. Are we trying to revert back to pre-European times, do we remove exotics from indigenous ecosystems and vice versa or do we mark a line in the sand and say this is the biodiversity levels we want and manage those. The decision has to be made of what biodiversity is required, where it should be "kept" and what priority (economic, cultural, ecological and holistic) should be placed on it.
10	Habitat mosaics in agricultural lands: biogeography, landscapes, meta-populations & management responses	Landscape; Biogeography; Land use; Indigenous; Invertebrates; Avifauna; Exotic; Agroecosystems	High	High	High	High	Incorporates Principle 1	An understanding is lacking of the functions and processing of the integrated landscape system – principally the biogeography of each region’s productive landscapes – over broad spatial and temporal scales. This includes particularly: the biogeographic aspects that impact on biodiversity within the landscape; the structural features of the landscape; the spatial relationships that are required to ensure the existence of species and ecological functions (test Meurk and Swaffield targets); the ecological functions that are critical to the long-term viability of habitat and their biodiversity. This research gap is supported by Gow (1997), as well as Cairns (1993), Richter (1993) and Halloy 1995.
11	Research of optimum management regimes in generic habitat/ ecosystem types	Invertebrates; biodiversity; ecology	high	high	mod	high	Not specifically listed, but underlies all priorities directed at biodiversity	We need to understand the characteristics of the suites of species present in the various systems and the impacts that existing and potential management regimes may have on biodiversity.
12	Crop intensification impacts on fragmentation and loss of habitat, stream biodiversity and soil health - including management responses	Landscape; Land use; Agroecosystems	High	High	Medium	High	Identified as first key influence. Related to soil priorities (A) and others.	Intensification is a key driver in the loss of biodiversity within landscapes. The issues include: more inputs - and outputs; simplification/homogenisation of habitat; and loss of system components and functions. From NSS SLM "[Intensification] will include changes in the intensity of traditional uses of rural areas such as higher fertiliser use, expansion of dairying, livestock fattening systems moving onto the more marginal store stock hill country, continuation of the urban and peri-urban development of previously rural areas, and the "industrialisation of the countryside" in the form of factory farms, pulp mills, dairy factories and other process industries."
13	Documentation of economic gains and biodiversity enhancement from leaving structure in the environment (eg. shelter, cost savings from not fertilising gullies etc)	Landscape; Land use; Agroecosystems; Capacity Building	High	High	High	High	Relates to understanding and motivation - Priority A	A mechanistic view to land management effectively applies blinkers to those making land management decisions, which reduces identification of potential opportunities from biodiversity enhancement in farming and forestry systems. Research is needed into the effects of leaving elements of a farm or forest in alternative land uses which can increase heterogeneity for habitat, while providing positives to farm and forestry businesses through reduced costs, reduced risks (through cashflow diversification or direct influences - such as shelter or shade) or increased returns and more efficient use of limited funds.
14	Development of tools to monitor biodiversity and guide management: Role of indicator spp within NZ systems	biodiversity; concepts; integration; assessment; monitoring; food webs; invertebrates	High	High	High	High	Not specifically listed, but underlies all priorities directed at biodiversity	Directed at all systems. There is a need to be able to compare the biodiversity of all terrestrial systems. This can only be done with ubiquitous, multi-trophic groups from the area of greatest biodiversity. A pragmatic system has been developed using beetles (a group holding perhaps a third of all biodiversity), but now widespread comparisons of systems needs to be made. This requires collaborative research, institutional agreements and training.
15	Development of tools to monitor biodiversity and guide management: Amphibians and snails as indicators	Forestry; Landscape; Landuse; BMP; Indicator species	Medium	Low	High	Medium	A/B	The role of indicator or focal species as tools to monitor ecosystem health makes cost-effective sense. It is not always possible to monitor all aspects of an ecosystem before management decisions are made due to time and money budgets. Therefore using indicators of biodiversity/ecosystem health are useful tools. Amphibians have been used overseas as indicators of water quality and aquatic health. This is especially true for changes in pH. Similarly in New Zealand native snails are thought to have a low tolerance of pH shift. Decreasing pH within the aquatic and litter environment is one of the fears with conifer plantations.
16	Development of tools to monitor biodiversity and guide management: Lizards as indicators	Forestry; Indicator species; BMP	High	High	High	High	A/B	The role of indicator or focal species as tools to monitor ecosystem health makes cost-effective sense. Overseas lizards are used as key indicators. In New Zealand they are could be useful indicators of aspects of forest health such as invertebrate abundance (diet), habitat complexity and quality (dead trees for cover, and berries and nectar for diet). Their distribution and abundance in the New Zealand forest ecosystem is unclear.
17	Weka as a forest health indicator?	Forestry; indicator species; Avifauna; BMP	High	High	Medium	Medium	A/B	The role of indicator or focal species as tools to monitor ecosystem health makes cost-effective sense. Weka populations can experience catastrophic declines over a short time. The reasons behind these declines are unknown but it is thought loss of habitat may be one aspect. The Department of Conservation is developing a national survey of weka abundance. Bird calling rates in native and plantation forest will be monitored at least once a year throughout New Zealand. Changes in abundance and distribution through time and landscape changes will be analysed to determine the causes of declines when they happen. Timberlands West Coast forestry company is assisting in this survey within their own exotic plantation estate and monitor the effects of their forestry practices on weka numbers.
18	Fish & riparian management	Forestry; BMP; Aquatic; Indigenous; Exotic	High	High	High	High	A	The theory of riparian zone and the effect of forest practices, such as harvesting, is very important. In overseas studies riparian widths start where New Zealand’s stop and the research suggests that riparian widths should be based on stream specifics and not based solely on the width of the stream. In New Zealand small streams, which normally under forest riparian guidelines would have little or no riparian buffer, are important breeding habitat for indigenous fish species. The importance of fish passages and their design has also not been realised in forestry guidelines. Overseas fish passage is important for salmonids (e.g. trout and salmon). Here salmonids are an introduced species which impact on native fish species. Fish passages may have to be designed to allow native fish to move up and downstream while constraining introduced species to already occupied habitat.
19	Varroa disruption of beekeeping and its impacts on pastoral systems in the South Island in particular	Pollination; Honey bees; Varroa	Low	High	Medium	Medium		Varroa is likely to spread despite best efforts to contain it in northern North Island. This is likely to have a big impact on South Island beekeeping in particular because this is a traditionally low input - low output sector of the industry. The long-term effects of a lack of honey bees on extensive low input styled pastoralism is therefore of concern. A critical question is whether lack of honeybees will seriously reduce the long term prominence of N fixing clovers and therefore decrease the long-term productivity of extensive pastoralism over large parts of New Zealand. This research must be started soon so that the baseline measures are in place before Varroa spreads much further.
20	Does degree of pollination affect regeneration of indigenous species?	Pollination; Honey bees; Other bees; Other pollinators	Medium	Low	Low	Low		The overall importance of pollinators of native plants in agricultural landscapes is not known. Several other factors could render it unimportnat for plant regeneration and the immediate overarching goal: to get more native woody vegetation back into NZ’s agricultural landscapes.
21	Increases in woody vegetation following RCD	Landscape; Pests; Pest control	High	High	Medium	High	A	Rabbits were keystone species in semi-arid agricultural landscapes, partly because of their grazing pressure and partly because they promote the abundance of introduced predators (especially cats and ferrets) in the ecosystem. The recent introduction of RCD and initial signs that it will effectively reduce rabbit abundance now makes RCD the new keystone species. Longer-term changes to the landscape are now likely, especially a large increase in woody weeds with unknown impacts on agricultural biodiversity, weed control expenditure and toxin discharge. Research is now urgent to get adequate baselines for comparison to establish long-term trends.
22	Hedgehogs population ecology, diet and impacts	Landscape; Pests; Pest control; Pastoral	High	Low	Medium	Low	A	Better understanding of hedgehog ecology and impacts in agricultural landscapes is probably the most important gap in vertebrate autecology in agricultural landscapes. High biomass and high metabolic rate of this insectivore and demonstration of it's predation of ground nesting birds eggs and chicks, native insects and snails suggest impacts may be considerable. A potential role in Tb transmission cannot be ruled out.
23	Importance of introduced species for nurturing indigenous ones	Landscape; Land use; Agroecosystem; Indigenous; Exotic; Biogeography	High	Medium	High	High	Not expressed, other than as implicit in Principle 1	An understanding of the role of introduced species – and mixed indigenous/introduced assemblages in productive landscapes – in providing for indigenous biodiversity is required in New Zealand. These relationships can be critical for the conservation of indigenous biodiversity and ecological functions in wider landscapes. Not all "exotic" species represent either a pest or a weed.
24	Understanding ecology of shrubland	Landscape; Pests; Pest control	High	High	High	Medium		Scrubland is potentially crucial to increasing the diversity of woody vegetation in agricultural landscapes. It is often the target of land "conversion" to more intensified agriculture, but also the potential source of new indigenous forest enclaves. The ecological processes (egs. succession, biodiversity, nutrient and carbon fluxing, soil formation and invertebrates) in scrub are comparatively little understood compared to intensively managed land and forests. By providing cover and ecotones in agricultural landscape this habitat is probably important for several pest and weed species. (NB -late successional shrubland is apparently more important than forest for insect biodiversity)
25	Effect of practices on agri biodiversity	foodwebs; fungi; invertebrates	High	High	Medium	High	Not specifically listed, but underlies all priorities directed at biodiversity	Just as we need to understand the characteristics of biodiversity in various system types of bioclimes across NZ, we need to know the effects on biodiversity of various management regimes within particular land uses. Without this we cannot judge best management practice for biodiversity. Some work has been done in this area, but there is a need for a far greater emphasis on the biological aspects
26	Roadside verges, hedges, and riparian areas.	Landscape; land use; Riparian; Agroecosystems; Invertebrates; Avifauna; Biogeography	High	Medium	Medium	Medium	Not expressed, other than as implicit in Principle 1	Key corridors and patches in agroecosystems are provided by roads, hedgerow, shelterbelts and riparian areas. Often these are the only habitat within an otherwise homogeneous environment, yet their importance to biodiversity or wider landscape ecological function is not realised or much studied. They also can have key roles in other aspects advantageous to land owners - e.g. . water quality, IPM, shelter. Management often works against these benefits because they are not appreciated - such as removal of what are considered "untidy" areas needed by much wildlife - even when the wildlife themselves are appreciated and valued by land owners.
27	Effects of forestry practices e.g. where do the birds go when trees are felled	Forestry; Exotic; Monitoring; Avifauna; BMP; Landscape	High	High	High	High	A (under monitoring)	Birds such as kiwi, tui, tomtit, fantail, grey warbler, brown creeper, silvereye, weka, New Zealand falcon, robin, shining cuckoo, long-tail cuckoo and morepork occupy plantation forests in New Zealand. Many native fruiting shrubs can be found within the understorey of exotic plantations upon which kereru, bellbirds and other native frugivores can feed. Also in exotic plantations where the stands are old (> 30 years) hole nesters such as rifleman, can find suitable nest habitat. Stand/compartment harvesting is likely to affect the abundance and distribution of many of these birds. Do these birds move into neighbouring habitat and thus the overall landscape biodiversity is enhanced or are lost every time harvesting occurs? Does the biodiversity value of plantations last only as long as the rotation time?
28	Biodiversity in plantation forests over time	Forestry; Exotic; Monitoring; Avifauna; BMP	High	High	High	High	A (under monitoring)	The exotic monocultural appearance of these forests commonly obscures the fact that they harbour a wide range of indigenous plant, bird and invertebrate species. But plantation forests are a dynamic ecosystem with successional changes in species composition during the rotation of a crop. There are few, if any studies on the changes in species composition in New Zealand plantation forests during the rotation of a crop. Most research has been directed at the before and after effects of forest practices. By looking at the whole succession we could see if there are biodiversity benefits from plantation forests and it would also allow information on the effects of rotation time on biodiversity values.
29	Stand management vs. catchment management in pine	Forestry; Exotic; Landscape; BMP;	High	High	High	High	A (under monitoring)	Forestry is generally managed well at the stand level but this assumes that the stand or compartment is in isolation from the rest of the forest and/or landscape. Biodiversity is not restrained by human-imposed boundaries therefore management of biodiversity in forests should go beyond the stand and look at the landscape or catchment level.
30	Ecological and social determinants of maximum carrying capacity of grazing stock	Landscape; Ecosystem management	High	High	High	High		The number of dairy cows, cattle or sheep run by farmers is normally determined by feed availability, time required for management and economic parameters (costs, profit, market forces). Stocking rates are probably the key determinant of nutrient turnover and rate of removal of biomass and nutrients from the land, fertiliser inputs, non-point sources of pollution and a large number of indirect ecological effects on biodiversity. A truly ecologically sustainable approach is likely to require management of stocking rates between optimal lower and upper limits. An integrated multidisciplinary ecosystem approach is therefore long-overdue to identify optimum stocking rates and its social and economic consequences. This would require a large team involved in a long-term research project working on a range of farming styles in the main bioregions.

Criteria for ranking

Obviously there is too long a list of gaps to fund all the investigations of value, so firm prioritisation is necessary. Topics scoring a relative 'low' rank in this forced prioritisation are important in absolute terms, but regrettably should be set aside in the meantime until more resources for research are available, or until new information is discovered that might elevate them to top priority.

Just as Ecosystem management recognises hierarchical scales of importance, so too our research topics span several scales of importance. In the absence of knowledge about how much investment in research might be possible, it is virtually impossible to rank the individual projects in a rigorous and defendable manner other than just urging ones with generally high importance scores are selected before others. A more inter-locking subset of projects could be designed so that each helps the other but only once the overall level of research is known.

Ecological, social and economic importance are the key determinants of the value of the research. Research of the most important ecological processes and species³⁵⁶ in the agricultural landscape should be selected for first attention. Abundant and more widespread species or management practices are worth featuring before infrequent species or practices because the former are often the key determinants of our landscape structure and functioning (the need to save very low abundance or restricted species from extinction is a special case). Social and economic considerations are no more or less important than the ecological considerations, as underscored by the ecosystem management approach. At a purely pragmatic level, lack of attention to economic drivers is unlikely to proffer a solution to ecological drivers.

Taxonomic uniqueness helps define ecological importance for biodiversity ranking. For this reason attention to supporting endemic species in agricultural landscapes deserves relatively higher priority than securing introduced biodiversity, though we caution against an extreme dichotomy in value judgements in this way. Several parts of the foregoing review identified the ways that introduced species may support indigenous ones (e.g., mohonui weta surviving in gorse, kereru being supported by introduced legumes), or where indigenous species are causing economic problems (e.g. grass grub) or threaten biodiversity. We suggest that research that explores these potential synergies between introduced and indigenous biota be given high priority. This follows partly because introduced species predominate in agricultural landscapes and therefore represent opportunity (if well managed) to support indigenous ones under threat throughout New Zealand. It also partly reflects our belief that demonstration of the ways that introduced biota help native ones is a key determinant of building public support for investment in better care of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Understanding the ecology of introduced species threatening several endemic ones is also potentially crucial because it can get at the causes of conservation problems. A simple priority ranking to study native species above introduced ones in agricultural landscapes would therefore be potentially destructive. Priority should be given to understanding an indigenous species over an introduced one in agricultural landscapes only if all other things are equal. This final criterion is sensible because the elimination of an endemic is synonymous with global extinction, whereas in most instances an overseas reservoir of introduced biota still remains for later re-introduction to New Zealand should the local populations fail.

Ecological and economic potential is sometimes as important as the status quo. For example, gorse is definitely currently more of an ecological and economic threat than broom but the reverse may be true in generations to come. Gorse has been a problem in New Zealand since about the 1880s and its distribution is probably nearing its ecological capacity. Broom has probably been in New Zealand as long as gorse, but unlike gorse, it was planted in domestic gardens and never spread around the countryside as a hedge. Broom did not reach critical mass for invasion until about 1950, since when it has been invading rapidly. Distribution is still quite limited, but broom probably has potential to be much more ecologically important than gorse³⁵⁷.

Ecological urgency can sometimes influence priority setting after potential or realised ecological importance has been assessed. The gorse cf. broom research also illustrates this well. DSIR and then Landcare Research Ltd. started the biocontrol fight against broom with seed-feeders to try to stem the rate of long distance invasion³⁵⁸. This is usually not the preferred approach in biocontrol circles, but it became a priority after recognition of the urgent need to stem spread to prevent the weed reaching its ecological potential. In general stemming new organisms in their invasive phase will often force urgency to its research, potentially at the expense of current ecological importance of competing projects. Introduced animals often complete their spread throughout New Zealand very rapidly, but weeds can sometimes be more easily contained.

Threatened species priority rankings are also commonly ranked on urgency because once below the Minimum Viable Population size³⁵⁹ it is only a matter of time before demographic or environmental stochasticity will cause localised extinction. MAF should use DoC's threatened species ranking system³⁶⁰ to prioritise research aiming to safeguard threatened species persisting in predominantly agricultural landscapes.

Research for biodiversity monitoring: a special case

Robust systematic monitoring of agricultural biodiversity is a conspicuous gap in current management regimes. Without adequate monitoring management will be adrift (akin to a doctor trying to treat a potentially ailing patient without a measure of her or his pulse). The best monitoring methods are objective, repeatable and cheap to apply, but they must also be carefully chosen to be interpretable and to monitor ecologically important species in the system. Detailed research is sometimes needed to select the best methods and confirm that they are monitoring the intended aspect of ecosystem health. Complexity and expense has often forced managers to search for "Indicator species" or "focal species" rather than a wide suite of biota, but even then preliminary work is prudent to be sure the species chosen is appropriate. Initial research to design and test proposed monitoring methods is a valuable investment and urgent priority. We therefore recommend that research aiming to define key biodiversity indicators in agricultural and forestry landscapes be given high priority. This reflects an urgency to develop and test tools before one can get on with the main task: repair of a failing ecosystem.

Ranking between focal areas

It is more important to research ecologically, socially and economically important topics than it is to prioritise equally between the four focal areas of immediate interest to the CBD. Some high-ranking priorities are likely to emerge in each focal area so that New Zealand will be able to contribute lessons and share knowledge anyway without needing to heed the somewhat artificial selection and boundaries set for CBD attention.

Nevertheless 'Integrated landscapes and farming' emerges as the most important focal area for both research and selection of case studies. This is because the landscape level processes concern generic underlying processes. Landscape ecology, by virtue of its holistic and integrated nature is the most natural "marriage" to ecosystem management and the CBD. Conservation managers emphasising the landscape level are more likely to provide a broader perspective that potentially allows better and more long-lasting actions for biodiversity. By focusing on generic and widespread processes it may be possible to capture better cost efficiencies and focus on generic solutions rather than more piecemeal attempts to fix smaller parts of the problem. For example, localised endemism may be threatened by widespread pervasive forces such as impacts of introduced predators that vary in predictable ways across the agricultural ecological landscapes. Finally, the landscape level is where most people appreciate and first 'meet" nature to form their environmental connection and appreciation. We therefore recommend that most of the research fall within the landscape focal area.

There is no common ecological currency to measure each of the three remaining focal areas (Soil biota, Pollinators, Forestry) against the other because the division of areas has been somewhat arbitrarily defined by the CBD and COPs. Therefore we recommend that there be no attempt to rank or balance the number of research projects between these three focal areas. On purely ecological and economic importance alone, soil biota are undoubtedly the top research priority.

Establishment of a cohesive research portfolio

The optimum shape of an agricultural biodiversity portfolio is extremely difficult to determine in detail until the available budget is known. We recommend that as many research and/or adaptive management projects be mounted as resources allow and that topics are initially selected approximately according to the importance rankings given in Table 3. There are so many high value research topics that it will matter little which are chosen if only a small programme can be initiated.

We recommend that a more comprehensive and cohesive research and adaptive management programme, probably requiring an annual investment of millions of dollars be planned once approximate budget allocations are known. This portfolio should incorporate many of the strands reviewed in this report i.e.:

be multidisciplinary, using the principles of Ecosystem Management
include long-term study
focus on the direct biodiversity ecological linkages to land use issues and categories recognised by land use managers
generally be multi-species in approach, but include some threatened species programmes that illustrate general models for complementing biodiversity protection and land use
target abundant and widespread species in agricultural landscapes because these are ecologically important
consider potential/eventual impact as equally important to current ecological importance
target support to endemic species as more important than exotic ones, but not to the exclusion of valuable exotic species that potentially enhance agricultural biodiversity
evaluate ecological effects of homogenisation and intensification of land use
assign higher priority to soil biota and landscape issues than to forestry and pollinator concerns
study generic processes in both forestry and agricultural landscapes so that each habitat regime gains some specific closely targeted information while contributing more thematic understandings to the other

9.3 - Prospects for the future of New Zealand biodiversity

Barriers to the Achievement of Biodiversity Goals Across the Whole New Zealand Landscape

The main barriers to the achievement of biodiversity goals are:

A "dis"-integrated approach to environmental issues that segregates various systems into competing and confrontational artificial dichotomies:
Operational management, from policy and from science
Nature from culture
Indigenous from introduced
Human use from "conservation" preserves
Public from private
Species from ecosystems and landscapes
The lack of long-term integrated research on the systems (especially ecological and social processes) that underpin the landscape; the lack of integration within science and between science and both policy and management
The lack of integrated policy both within and across disciplines, and between policy and both research and operation
The lack of focus on implementation of environmental management, other than from authoritative positions
The lack of some capacities (trained staff).

Ecosystem Management is profoundly different from the research, policy and application approach that currently predominates within New Zealand. Far from being integrative, the New Zealand model is characterised by what could be termed a "dis"-integration of research, policy, and the administration of biodiversity within the public and private estates.

In particular, there is a dichotomy between environmental concerns such as biodiversity, and the productive estate. This is reflected in research, in policy and in land administration. In addition, within environmental management there is a focus on species rather than landscape management, and "introduced" culture is rigidly segregated from "indigenous" nature.

We recommend that representatives from MAF, MfE, DoC, Te Puni Kokiri, Regional Councils, Parliamentary Commission for the Environment, the Landcare movement and conservation NGOs meet to explore ways to help each other re-integrate biodiversity policy, management and research in New Zealand's agricultural landscapes. MAF should take a key facilitating role in this process as it has a central co-ordinating role with the predominant land users - the agriculturalists and foresters.

Collaboration and co-funding between MAF and DoC on some threatened species work in agricultural landscapes is recommended to speed re-integration. DoC and Landcare have a splendid collaboration growing in the FRST PGSF "Changing Landscapes" project. Co-funding and collaboration by MAF in this work would be highly desirable.

NZ Science Environment

New Zealand's science framework was restructured in 1992 with the development of Crown Research Institutes. The central characteristics of this review included:

a separation of science from both policy and operation³⁶¹;
the continued development of contestable funding process, with relatively short term funding that is largely focused on the functional needs of different economic sectors, rather than multiple objective opportunities across sectors³⁶²
the development of an administrative structure in science developed along corporate lines - with profit motive and corporate ownership of intellectual "property" established, and staff independence reduced
a focus of individual institutes on separate core areas of research, with issues relating to land use segregated into Agresearch, Forest Research, Crop and Food; Landcare and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research (NIWA)
in some situations the associated loss of both institutional knowledge and important research capabilities³⁶³ .

The current New Zealand science framework is not well suited to an integrative and co-operative framework that incorporates multiple objectives (social, commercial and environmental issues across landscapes). Nor does the framework encourage the integration between institutes, though this is an area where concern has been raised a number of times over the past decade. It is not well suited to the development of long-term research programmes that are required for interdisciplinary research within complex systems. Lastly, the reduction in integration between research, policy and operational management seems counter to the ecosystem approach's emphasis on an inclusive approach to information - especially adaptive management, and information flows that treat all participants (science, policy makers and the land-based community) as both "learning" and "teaching" cultures.

New Zealand's science framework provides an interesting contrast to the trends that are recognised within environmental science elsewhere in the world. Cairns (1993) recognised five main impetuses to the integration of environmental science and resource management. These impetuses included: the modus operandi of the information age being integrative science, not fragmented science; the most exciting discoveries occurring at the interfaces of the classical disciplines; and the shifting of focus from a singular output to a system-level or landscape-level perspective.

In the late 1990s an attempt was made at providing a more integrated research environment through the development of National Science Strategies. Considerable effort was put into developing a National Science Strategy for Sustainable Land Management which we see as excellent, up-to-date and relevant364. We recommend that MAF promotes and actively implements the principles and priorities set out in the SLM statement both within MAF in all its programmes but also amongst other agencies with whom it interacts.

A proposal was put forward to establish a similar process for a National Science Strategy for Biodiversity, but it did not eventuate. We recommend that such a biodiversity NSS be formulated, either as an extension of the current SLM statement or separate from it.

We recommend that MAF works with MfE, DoC, the Ministry for Science and Technology (MoRST), and the Foundation for Research Science & technology (FRST) to re-integrate research strategic planning to help each other on a cohesive portfolio of research to safeguard biodiversity on managed landscapes.

Integration of biodiversity and use expertise within MAF could also be hastened by appointment of ecologists at all levels of MAF. We recommend that MAF considers building an in-house ecological science capacity to spearhead its own biodiversity research programme and hasten integration of policy, management and research for conservation through sustainable use. Having ecologists throughout the Department is a necessary step for ecological concerns to become part of the day-to-day modus operandi of the Ministry.

These initiatives might be considered redundant in the light of the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy, but that Strategy is very limited in its treatment of biodiversity research priorities over the whole landscape, focusing mainly on indigenous biodiversity within reserves. It is neither an effective surrogate for an operative National Science Strategy for Sustainable Land Management, nor for a similar national strategy considering biodiversity research.

NZ Policy Environment

The policy environment in New Zealand has undergone similar reductionist reforms to those of science, based on similar principles that have tended to produce specialist departments with singular or limited objectives.

This singularity of emphasis has lead to the inevitable development of singular approaches and a reduction in internal critique, to the detriment of a pluralism of policies, and especially to bottom-up processes that decentralise decision-making. The DoC-lead Biodiversity Strategy, which has tended to focus on indigenous species within relatively intact indigenous systems, is a case in point. It is notable perhaps that the department which lead the development of New Zealand's Biodiversity Strategy is not leading the policy development focusing on biodiversity on private land, where its favoured reserve approach to conservation issues is not always popular. The Ministry for the Environment has that task.

Logic would suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would be heavily involved in this policy development because they are the ministry with the strongest understanding of the people and land use issues within productive landscapes. However, the emphasis by that department on environmental and social issues has declined in recent years (Gerard Fitzgerald, pers. comm.), reflecting a continuing trend in policy reductionism over holism. We recommend that MAF increases its commitment to social research to underpin application of the Ecosystem Management approach.

The Biodiversity Strategy consistently makes mention of the role of people and the "conservation and sustainable use" of biodiversity. The implication is that the two issues are separate, and people are separate from "conservation". Other comments and interpretations made within the document suggest that the implications of sustainable use within an ecosystem management context is not well understood. Conservation as "preservation, set apart from people" is still a strong message throughout.

The Biodiversity Strategy plays at best a lip service to the ecosystem approach. The outline within the Strategy describing "Ecosystem Management: Considering Everything" (Anon 1996) explicitly fails to take a holistic view across all land ecosystems, and is very weak in its acknowledgement of the role of humans within these landscapes. In short, the interpretation does not consider everything, and fails to appreciate the positive contributions that can be made by both people and introduced species and assemblages. This more narrow interpretation is also reflected in the identification of research gaps within the Biodiversity Strategy. It confines the concerns identified to issues within the indigenous systems, and its only mention of introduced species refers to the "impacts of exotic species on our biodiversity" (DoC 2000), which suggests threats, rather than both threats and opportunities. The lack of knowledge of how "exotic" species could positively contribute to biodiversity is not even recognised as a research gap within the Biodiversity Strategy.

There is an implicit message here that introduced species are not "our" biodiversity, and that this "exotic" biodiversity is viewed exclusively as a threat. This reductionist view risks failing to capture the opportunities for indigenous biodiversity that may be provided by introduced and highly modified land use systems (which make up over 60 percent of New Zealand's land area), as well as introduced species. Introduced species can provide complementary food and habitat for a range of indigenous species, and may be essential to some ecosystem functions in particular areas. Their "exotic" status both marginalises their potential contribution and reduces the potential gains for indigenous biodiversity.

As well as providing potential opportunity for biodiversity (introduced and indigenous), it is also these productive areas where many important indigenous systems are present, many of which are threatened. The solution, once again, could depend on the value and use made of introduced biodiversity in these particular areas. When viewed at a holistic systems level, a purist approach that only sees value in the indigenous components of these landscapes would represent a threat to maintenance and restoration of biodiversity. Such is the possible outcome when introduced species and modified ecosystems are only presented as an alien danger. This failure to consider all the environmental, social and economic processes across the entire landscape is precisely the threat that the ecosystem approach framework is designed to avoid.

The Kneebone report on the BioWhat? document represented an attempt to manage biodiversity across the privately-owned landscape, but, once again, the dichotomy between productive and conservation lands remains. A related initiative - though one not recommended by the Kneebone report - is the Ministry for the Environment's (MfE) development of a National Policy Statement on Biodiversity under the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. The RMA remains one of the most integrative pieces of legislation relating to the environment in New Zealand. The department responsible for this Act, MfE, is likewise specifically interested in broader landscape concerns that encompass all facets of the environment (ecological, social and economic).

Depending on the philosophical approach taken, the National Policy Statement may represent a useful tool to integrate biodiversity policy within the wider landscape. We recommend that MAF and MfE embrace the environmental philosophies integral to the CBD-endorsed ecosystem approach by working in close partnership in developing a strong NPS. However, we also go further by urging MAF to take an active advocacy role for the value of introduced species and land uses as positive contributors to national biodiversity.

New Zealand's Management of the Landscape

Perhaps the greatest challenge is to develop the broader considerations and longer-term philosophies of landscape ecology and the ecosystem approach in partnership with those people who have the most direct relationship with the land. There is no doubt that past land use practices have harmed biodiversity, and some continue to do so. Many New Zealanders have come from a utilitarian and colonial heritage, which valued the land as a commodity and a producer of commodities.

Some New Zealanders still live within wholly utilitarian perspectives. At the other extreme, some critics will not believe that anyone has moved beyond pure utilitarianism, or is even capable of moving beyond it. The latter people believe we must either remove people, or regulate their actions. However, the people closest to the land are developing their ethical relationship within these landscapes, valuing the environment in different ways, and readjusting their relationships with it and obligations toward it. This may be an inevitable consequence of a developing history of place, where the alternative to being of this place - this home - is to have no home on this planet. Perhaps this is what it is to become truly a New Zealander - to live from the fruits of the land, as part of it. This ethical development needs to be encouraged and supported³⁶⁵, perhaps drawing on the Maori perspective of Tangata Whenua (people of the land) as suggested by Patterson (2000), as well as the ideas of Leopold³⁶⁶, Jackson³⁶⁷, Berry³⁶⁸, and Freyfogle³⁶⁹.

The key to encouraging this land ethic is a bottom-up approach, which does not have the arrogance of assuming "education" involves only the flow of knowledge and information from some "top" authority. The top down approach has been dominant to date, commensurate with an exclusive attitude of the teachers - who see culture as separate from nature, and who believe they have nothing to learn from that culture.

The bottom-up approach also needs a broader, systems level understanding of landscapes and all the processes that act through it. A systems perspective is developing in many of our centres of higher learning, though its importance is perhaps not given the recognition it deserves.

The key agencies who have the ability, staff structure and the existing common interests to develop long-term, bottom-up, personal relationships with land managers necessary for effective participatory processes and adaptive management are the Landcare Trust and regional councils. We recommend that MAF acknowledge and provide support for the Landcare Trust and regional councils as the best placed to provide the long-term learning relationships with people on the land essential for adaptive management under ecosystem management.

The resourcing of these agencies, as well as political commitment remain the key constraints to their greater involvement. At present the direction employed in information flows is to provide "technology transfer" direct from research providers³⁷⁰, or relatively short-term (less than five year) contracts to private providers. Not many initiatives emphasise "learning by doing" or the long-term commitment and reinforcement necessary for effective change through adaptive management. Even where adaptive management is being attempted, the links for information flows from land users through to policy and research (and vice versa) are not always apparent.

Interests in Maintaining the Dichotomy

Unfortunately, New Zealand's research, policy and land management environment encourages the more reductionist approach - and both strong utilitarian and strong environmental interests remain allies to the other in maintaining that dichotomy. Many environmental advocates (in research, policy and operational management) have an interest in not considering the social and economic interests that impact on the environment - often to the point of marginalising society in particular. On the other hand, the advocates for utilitarian commerce (in research, policy and operational management) also have an interest in not having to consider the social and environmental issues, often because they are perceived to represent potential costs - though this may be more of a perception than reality.

This dichotomy is no longer appropriate given the emphasis placed on its opposite by the Convention on Biological Diversity. One of Grumbine's³⁷¹ key prerequisites for successful application of the ecosystem management approach is that the lead agency reflects the inherent environmental philosophy at its core in the way it sets its priorities and funding and the way it acts. We recommend that MAF conducts a thorough in-house review to identify ways to reduce dichotomies between use and conservation, native and introduced biota etc. in the way it is organised and operates.

9.4 - Conclusion - New Zealand at the crossroads

New Zealand's conservation successes to date have been mixed. We have halted the decline of many species and ecosystems - often through preservation, intensive pest management and restoration. But overall the decline in biodiversity is ongoing³⁷² and we have largely ignored the biodiversity in agricultural landscapes that predominate over most of New Zealand. These landscapes mainly occupy the highly fertile lowland sites where the potential for biodiversity enhancement is greatest. It is time we turned attention to this neglected area as a national priority.

If we were to sum up the one major problem that faces our biodiversity - in reserves as well as productive areas - it might not be the introduced pests who have the most direct and negative impact, or the lack of understanding of the underlying processes in our whole landscapes at varying hierarchical scales. Rather, it may be the "dis"-integrating approach to environmental issues that prevents our proper addressing of these issues by segregating various systems into artificial dichotomies - research and policy, which are segregated from each other and from land management; nature from culture; the "indigenous" from the "introduced"; human use from "conservation" preserves; and even species from ecosystems and landscape. In essence, our approach to environmental issues in New Zealand is a long way from the Ecosystem Approach, whose focus is to integrate all these systems.

The Government can relatively easily provide a menial response to the CBD to meet specific requirements such as those related to case studies. The real challenge for the Government is to embrace the philosophies that underpin the Convention, particularly the Ecosystem Approach and the principles of landscape ecology that underpin it. We recommend that MAF and potential collaborating government departments use the CBD as an impetus and opportunity to embrace a fundamental change where ecological sustainable living and land use are a way of life.

Then prospects for the future will be wonderful, not just for our biodiversity, but also for sense of identity it would bring to the people of this land.

New Zealand is at a crossroads. We can collectively decide to integrate indigenous nature into our productive landscapes, or we can allow reinforcement of the historical dichotomy of nature and culture and continue the ambivalence and uneasy sense of displaced identity it brings.

(Meurk & Swaffield 2000)

Contact for Enquiries

MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person